VTTW Board Index

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/13/global_warming_new_study_shows_warming_is_faster_than_it_has_been_in_11.html

It's been 15 years now since the "warmest year on record," and politically-guided scientists still claim that the earth is warming at a faster rate now than ever before. Wow.

Climate isn't about one year.

That's true. Tell that to all the global warming fearmongerers who blame things like super storm Sandy on AGW. However, it's been 15 - FIFTEEN - years. If we are "warming more rapidly than ever before," why haven't we exceeded the '98 high water mark. Is the earth warmer today than it has historically been? Obviously. But who's to say this isn't a cyclical occurrence that has plateaued?

Did you read the article? It's talking about the rate of change and predictions in the very near future. It never said anything about today being the warmest in recorded history but the rate of change is far greater than can be ascertained from fossil records for the last 100 or so centuries.

Yes, I did. But how can we talk about the acceleration of the rate of change without mentioning that we've gone 15 years with temperatures at a plateau? That has to be taken into account. Fifteen years is a long time, even when we're talking about eons of history.

And there's this. Not a lot of real hard data given but the results are noteworthy. http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/26/17475593-arctic-change-reverberates-around-globe-experts-say?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

You are 100% correct, there is zero (0) hard data for man made global warming, or global warming for that matter!

Hell, you must remember that global cooling was going to kill us all, just 20-30 years ago!

waiting with baited breath for the poles to swap, which will be far more harmful to inhabitants of this planet than global cooling/warming would ever think about.

The only place I've read about global cooling is here. Since I was in the second grade (that was a few years ago) I've heard about greenhouse gasses and the problems they could cause. Looks like they had this one dead on.

Seriously?

(http://www.calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Time-magazine-global-cooling.jpg)

Very seriously. I don't get "Time" or other periodicals. I never heard it discussed among any academic conclaves I attended. If it was it wasn't dwelled on or was dismissed as bad science.

Well 2014 topped 1998 and 2015 is on track to even better that one but if it doesn't set a record then we can assume global cooling is happening.

Other than the FACT we are on a 17 year GLOBAL cooling trend you might have a point.  As the alarmists are fond of saying, weather is not climate.

BTW, we are warming, from the little ice age, it's nature, it's what she does

http://robertscribbler.com/2014/10/08/its-worse-than-we-thought-new-study-finds-that-earth-is-warming-far-faster-than-expected/

Dire predictions have been made before and proven wrong (some are pretty funny).  The beginning of the article discusses the predictions of another ice age in the 1960s and 1970s.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

I just think the entire thing is about money and control, but that's just my $02.

Simply untrue.  Temperatures ARE rising.  Period, dot.

You can see that here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201401-201412.png

Has the rate slowed?  Certainly, but temperature rises are real, and do seem to be correlated with manmade CO2. 

The problem is, the results of the rise are greatly, and repeatedly, exaggerated.  Just today I discussed with a friend some dire predictions of sea rise.  Which, as it turns out, were based on an assumption that ice will continue melting well into the future given a fixed temperature increase, and the authors of the paper admit in the fine print that it's an assumption that may not be true.

But that didn't prevent the reporter citing the source from stating "up to 286 million people" might be displaced by rising seas.  What the reporter failed to mention was that those rising seas might take up to 100, 200, or even 2000 years and this is if you accept that the ice continues to melt more year after year at a fixed higher temperature, which, to say the least, is a big assumption. 

Anyway, temperatures have definitely increased and continue to do so, but the rate is small and the effects much smaller (IMO), than some of the alarmists would suggest.

I guess it depends on who and what you choose to believe. 

http://www.naturalnews.com/045005_global_warming_climate_change_greenhouse_effect.html#

I could also show graphs and articles that show no correlation between manmade CO2 and global temps, but we could post links all day and it wouldn't change our respective minds on the issue.   :tongue:

I'm not impressed with the source.  They use a very selective time frame to make their point and also limit it to a single source of data.

 My plot is from a government agency that shows the consensus temperature increase from multiple data sources.  

It shows a leveling off in the time frame cited by your article, but just glancing at it, it's not quite zero.  But they do appear to be pretty close.

Bull shizzle
We have seen FALLING  temps across the world for the last 17 years!
The Arctic ice extent is approaching records
Oh,'and by the way, despite the wholesale manipulation of records, we are still aren't any warmer than natural solar cycles account for

I don't really care how impressed you are with the source, as I can show the same conclusion from multiple sources.   :tongue:  I know you don't care how unimpressed I am with your "government agency" source, a source that I would assume has a large stake in the results of the data. I also wonder if any of the data sets were based on computer modeling rather than, as my source was, based on verifiable satellite data?  It may be that none was obtained from computer models, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were.   :crazy:   As I said in my post, it depends on who and what you believe.

Also, a few weeks ago there was a thread on the board about what a hypothetical conversation might be like between a scientist and a person of faith.  It was said that the scientist would never just say "conversation over" like a person of faith was supposedly predisposed to say.  I think your "Period, dot." nonsense confirmed what I believed to be true - thanks for that.   :kiss2:

Here's my question on climate change: Why can't the answer lie somewhere in the middle? Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why does it all have to be AGW-related if you're a liberal or humans are completely blameless if you're a conservative?

We KNOW the earth is warmer today than it was 50 years ago. We KNOW that we're seeing some of the consequences of that. What we DON'T know, and may never know, is whether humans played a role in that or whether it's a naturally-occurring, cyclical phenomenon. And what we're unsure about is just how much the earth has warmed since that massive El Nino year in 1998. (Since El Nino is again off the charts this year, I'd anticipate that this is going to be another hot year, globally, that will give global warming scaremongers ammunition.)

I'm very much a skeptic that humans can actually influence the amount of warming we saw in the latter part of the 20th Century. But I'm not so dead set against the idea that I don't want to learn more if I can. In the meantime, would it really hurt us to clean up our act a little bit? We know that our behaviors are polluting the atmosphere and harming the environment. That isn't debatable. If we can reduce carbon emissions and consume more renewable energy, why wouldn't we want to? But, on the flip side of that, is there really enough data to justify wholesale change that could plunge the U.S. into an economic recession that surpasses even the Great Recession of '07-'09, just so we feel good about our efforts to prevent climate change that we aren't sure is caused by man in the first place?

Well said.  I think the US has taken, and plans to take, tremendous steps to reduce pollution, increase conservation, and spread environmental awareness over the past few decades, which I think is a great thing.  What I fear is that data manipulation and alarmism is being used to try to control people's lives and take more of their hard earned money in an attempt to try and address a problem that may not need addressing (or can't be addressed by humans, as mother nature likes to remind us from time to time).  Just color me skeptical but not closed minded on the issue.

I agree. And what is concerning is there are plenty of examples of data manipulation but when that is brought up, skeptics are shouted down by AGW alarmists with the aid of their right arm, which is the mainstream media.

My original reply was not to you, it was to Pirate.

To take just one example from the above, he states that "Arctic ice is at it's greatest extent".  this is simply not true if one simply looks at satellite data.

But to address your point, your plot started in 1998.  The global warming trend started in the early 1900s so by definition it's not a true picture of what's going on.

Finally, I am a person of faith, so  :kiss2: right back at you.  And a  :moon: just for good measure.   :biggrin:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/
http://www.naturalnews.com/041981_global_warming_computer_models_cooling.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17470-nasa-data-global-warming-still-on-pause-sea-ice-hit-record
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/#12977ea28bf0
http://nov79.com/gbwm/trees.html
I know a few are a couple years old, and you'll question the sources, but we could post stuff like this all long, and it wouldn't change anyone's mind on the issue.

Also, you being a person of faith doesn't change the fact that you made my point for me.   :moon:

I've lowered my carbon footprint significantly over the last five years and to be honest, all it has done is save me a hefty amount of $$$.  Seriously mucho dinero.  I turn to experts for suggestion.  On this board I turn to Pirate for his University of Tennessee football analysis because he's learned and amazingly knowledgeable about this sport.  And when it comes to this thing called climate change, I turn to the scientists... it's what they do.  I'll never understand the almost "militant" refusal to give scientists the respect when it comes to real knowledge of the subject.  To suggest they are politically or financially motivated seems beyond far fetched. 

If I can make changes in my life to preserve this great planet, maybe even leave it a little better than how I left it, why is this such a friggin' affront?  I look at my kid and future generations and I accept 100% the responsibility to leave it the way I found it for them.  I don't know any better way to behave and it's irresponsible of me to put my faith in a political movement to motivate my stance on the environment just as it is irresponsible for me to look to a political party to lead me on "moral" issues.

I find the insistence to keep doing what we are doing until someone "proves" it's bad to be disingenuous, irresponsible and frankly unethical.  How much more proof do we need?  And honestly?  How long do we wait for an improvable proof before we act like responsible, caring Americans, humans and parents? 

If I go to my grave knowing I left my future generations with a clean place to live, that trumps winning a "debate" every single second.  This argument seems idiotic to me.  Scientists know more than all of us.  To pretend like any of us know better is... farce.

Where to begin... No one that I know of is suggesting that we keep doing what we're doing, and I've given credit to the US for making strides in the environmental area.  I also agree that following one's conscience on any matter is the best thing to do, and I’m glad that’s what you’re doing.  However, putting your faith in scientists that have been proven wrong so many times (not just in their predictions of what global warming will cause, but in many others areas of science) seems misguided at best.  In addition, to suggest that these scientists don't have a financial and control agenda is extremely naïve (hundreds of millions of dollars in grants have come, and continue to come, out of this issue alone).  On the control side, I think those that want to shut down the debate on the issue are the militant ones.  There are those (one was a former vice president) that want to punish those that speak out against what their scientists are saying.  Forcing people to accept a theory seems a bit militant to me.   I also think that you are putting your faith in a political movement, it's just one that doesn't begin with a "D" or "R".  I don't know of anyone that allows their political party to lead them on moral issues (I think the opposite is more true).  And to suggest that those that don't take action based on something that may not be happening as, "disingenuous, irresponsible and frankly unethical" is absurd.  I guess you love your children more than I love mine, congrats on that.  This just saddens me, "Scientists know more than all of us.  To pretend like any of us know better is... farce.", just wow.  This post is why I said that those on the gw side have what I consider to be closed minds on the issue, and they shout others down but saying the science is settled (no matter any evidence to the contrary).  (Sorry if my punctuation sucks, I was not an English major  :tongue:).

We’ll have agree to disagree on this issue, and still be brothers-in-arms as hating bama  :bird: (that's for them not you  :toothless:) .

"We’ll have agree to disagree on this issue"...

I'm pretty used to that.   :naughty: